McAllister v. Aeon
- David Doty
- 0:25-cv-03044
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In McAllister v. Aeon, Judge Doty denied plaintiff Melissa McAllister's request to appeal without paying the filing fee, finding her appeal frivolous.
Litigants — particularly those without legal representation and with limited financial means — who have had a case dismissed and seek to appeal without paying the filing fee. This order illustrates that financial eligibility alone is not sufficient; the appeal must also have a non-frivolous legal or factual basis.
What happened
In McAllister v. Aeon (Civil No. 25-3044), plaintiff Melissa McAllister sued Aeon, Aeon Management, The Rose Apartments, and Franklin Portland Gateway. After her case was dismissed, she asked the court to let her appeal without paying the filing fee — a status sometimes called fee waiver or indigent-party status — because she said she could not afford it.
The court reviewed whether McAllister qualified financially and whether her appeal was brought in good faith. While the court accepted that she likely could not afford the filing fee, federal law requires more than financial need: the appeal must also have a legitimate basis in law or fact. The court found that her appeal lacked any arguable legal or factual basis, making it frivolous under the applicable legal standard.
Judge David S. Doty denied McAllister's application to appeal without paying fees. Because the court found the appeal frivolous — referring back to the reasons given in the earlier order dismissing her case — it concluded the appeal was not brought in good faith, which is required under the relevant federal statute.
The detailed version
- McAllister v. Aeon · No. 0:25-cv-03044
- David Doty
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Melissa McAllister filed suit against defendants Aeon, Aeon Management, The Rose Apartments, and Franklin Portland Gateway in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The underlying case was previously dismissed (ECF No. 4). McAllister then sought to appeal that dismissal and filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — meaning she asked to be excused from prepaying the appellate filing fee on the ground that she cannot afford it — pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a).
Legal Standard
To obtain IFP status for an appeal, a litigant must satisfy two requirements. First, she must demonstrate financial inability to pay the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Second, the appeal must be taken in "good faith," meaning it must not be frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Good faith is assessed objectively, not based on the appellant's personal belief that her claims have merit. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962). An appeal is frivolous — and therefore not in good faith — when it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Analysis and Ruling
The court assumed, without definitively deciding, that McAllister satisfied the financial eligibility requirement, as her IFP application indicated she may not have sufficient monthly income or savings to cover the filing fee.
However, the court found the appeal fails the good-faith requirement. Citing the reasons set forth in the earlier order dismissing her case (ECF No. 4), the court determined that McAllister's appeal is frivolous — lacking any arguable basis in law or fact. Accordingly, IFP status cannot be granted.
Judge Doty denied the application to appeal without prepayment of fees (ECF No. 7).
Note on Scope
This order addresses only the IFP application for the appeal. The opinion does not restate the substantive grounds for the underlying dismissal; it incorporates those reasons by reference. The merits of the dismissed claims are not re-adjudicated here.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.